9th Cir.;
12-10202
The court of appeals vacated a judgment of conviction and remanded the action for a new trial. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding a criminal defendant’s expert witness testimony solely because the expert examined the defendant for competency rather than for diminished capacity. The court held further that the rule requiring a new trial when a district court erroneously admits prejudicial expert testimony in a civil trial also applies to the erroneous exclusion of expert testimony from a criminal trial.
